Ukip: Science test results

We challenged the main political parties to answer questions about their science policies posed by prominent scientists including Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and Petra Boynton. Here
Martin Robbins analyses the responses from Ukip, the UK Independence Party

Do you plan to maintain Britain's science budget below the European average?

Ukip's innovative approach to science funding is to set up a Royal Commission to investigate climate change in a court of law, and immediately cancel all funding "connected with 'global warming'" pending its outcome, thus wresting the science budget from the hands of "rapacious extremists".

It is a policy that places Ukip squarely in the realm of fantasy.

Since just about every national and international scientific institution on Earth accepts the evidence of humanity's impact on the climate, such a commission would almost inevitably conclude in science's favour. Ukip doesn't explain what it would do in the event of that outcome, having already crippled scientific research into potentially one of the greatest problems facing humanity this century.

Ukip claims that the Royal Commission would allow scientists to "reach a conclusion" on climate change. The problem is that scientists reached a conclusion decades ago, and research shouldn't be halted on the basis that Ukip's members are incapable of keeping up with it, or don't like its findings.

Even if a Royal Commission were set up as Ukip would like, it seems unlikely the party would listen to the results, given statements such as:

"The correct policy approach to the non-problem of 'global warming' is to have the courage to do nothing"

These are not the words of a party that is particularly open-minded about the outcome. Combined with its stated determination to destroy any institution or apparatus connected with solving the problem before a commission even reports, the impression given is of a party staffed by people who are far from rational.

Alternative medicine

If the balance of evidence suggests that a treatment does not perform any better than placebo, should it be supported by the NHS?

"The placebo effect is not fully understood, and should not be dismissed in favour of 'scientific' proof. If it works, it should be supported by the NHS ('mind over matter' etc.)"

Ukip has performed a U-turn over alternative medicine in the past year. Ahead of the European elections, its spokesman Tim Worstall was happy to declare, quite sensibly, that alternative medicines should be required to satisfy clinical trials and be regulated just like any other medicines.

In contrast, Monckton's response to this question, that the placebo effect "should not be dismissed in favour of 'scientific' proof", was confused. Science doesn't dismiss the placebo effect. The rejection in Ukip's manifesto of the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee's detailed report on homeopathy is not explained, but if the party believes that it has evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy that the rest of us have not seen, then perhaps it would care to share it with the world.

What will your party do to reduce the chilling effect of our libel laws on science? Currently there is no statutory public interest defence, so scientists risk running the gauntlet of London's High Court if they publish material they believe to be in the public interest, but that a major corporation or litigious charlatan believes to be libellous.

Monckton's original response was a resounding "no", but a further response from the press office clarified things, suggesting a personal lack of familiarity with this issue on the part of its science spokesman.

It seems Ukip is against the idea of a public interest defence, but would like to see the costs of libel law reduced. The problem, of course, is that this combination would make it even easier for companies to bring lawsuits like the one filed against Peter Wilmshurst, who is being sued for criticising a company's research findings at an academic conference.

Open debate is the cornerstone of science, and Ukip does not appear particularly committed to preserving it.

Climate change/Energy

Should nuclear power be part of our country's strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How soon can we bring new plants online?

"UKIP has been calling for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate since 2008, when extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear"

The nature of this "extensive manipulation of scientific data" is unclear, but it seems Ukip's policymakers have spent a bit too much time surfing conspiracy sites on the internet.

Meanwhile, Britain's energy demands will be met by commissioning "enough fossil-fuelled and nuclear power stations to meet demand," which is fairly straightforward, although neither costed nor elaborated upon in Ukip's manifesto.

To what extent should drug policy be based on scientific evidence? What evidence, if any, would you require to declassify a drug?

Ukip's drugs policy is somewhat more liberal than that of the present government. A distinction would be made between medical use and recreational use, with restrictions placed on the sale and marketing of drugs for the latter. The severity of the restriction would, unlike the present system, be based on scientific evidence.

How will your party ensure public health/education campaigns are underpinned by evidence, and how will you evaluate their success?

On the one hand, Ukip believes that public health policy should be informed by a "mature evaluation" of the scientific evidence. On the other, it disputes the results of such evaluations, with Monckton responding to this question by declaring that campaigns to reduce salt intake are based on "the medico-scientific community who have whipped up unjustifiable fears". The problem, again, is that while Ukip is happy to talk about evidence, it dismisses the evidence that is presented to it.

Genetic engineering/Stem cell research

Should Britain be at the forefront of research in these areas? What benefits do you believe such research will bring for society?

Monckton's answer to this was rather quirky:

"Wherever stem cells can be obtained by means other than the killing of very small children, it is ethical only to obtain the stem cells by means that do not involve the loss of little lives."

I can only assume that this is a reference to embryonic stem cells. They are generally obtained from surplus IVF embryos, rather than by killing very small children.

Do you believe pharmaceutical companies should be forced to publish all the research data they have on the potential benefits and harms of drugs they manufacture?

"All scientists, whether in pharmaceutical, climatic or other research, should be required to archive all of the material on which they base their results, and to disclose all material known to them but not already in the public domain that may have a bearing on their results."

This is a reasonably sensible policy, with some caveats. First, it is important to recognise that not all data can be published for a variety of reasons such as licensing issues, commercial confidentiality, data protection, patient confidentiality and so on.

In addition, some datasets, in genome research for example, are simply too large for conventional web servers, PCs and storage media to handle.

Second, researchers collecting data should have priority when it comes to analysing and presenting results – otherwise academics could be put in the unfair situation of spending years meticulously collecting data, only to see somebody else snatch the credit for the analysis.

A final point, which I've argued before, is that an open access policy to data needs to have a proper infrastructure and support system behind it, to manage archiving while scientists get on with their work unhindered.

Conclusions

On science, Ukip is dire, with no credibility in the scientific community and candidates who have a demonstrably poor grasp of basic scientific principles, which perhaps explains its general disarray and flip-flopping in areas such as health.

Ukip is the only significant party to support homeopathy, and the only party apart from the BNP still in denial over climate change. The appointment of Viscount Monckton as a science spokesman adds to the air of a party of old British eccentrics.